Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-03-29
VIRGINIA CASES.
IMPORTANT DECISION IN THE UNITED
STAIRS SUPREME COURT.
George n. Balm, Jr., Granted a Writ Of
Hsbeas Corpus and Discharged
Coupon Cases Decided.
[py telegraph to The ni.na,rh l


WASHINGTON, ID. c., March pa
decision was rendered by the United
States Supreme Court to-day in habcas-
corpus case No. 7 (originalj, car parte.
in the matter of George NJ, Balm, Jr.,
petitioner. Balm, the petitioner in this
case, was cashier OF the Exchange Ma
tional Bank of Norfolk, and was in
dicted under section 500 of the Re-
yised Statutes for making false re-
port or statement as TO the condition Of
that bank. He was tried, found guilty,
and sentenced to five years imprison-
ment in the Albany penitentiary. He
made application to this court for a writ
ofh06cdS corpus and discharge fromthe
custody of the United States Marshal,
on the ground-frst, that the indict-
ment on which he was tried was not
found by legal or valid grand jury /;
and second, that the indictment itself
was unconstitutional and void because
after it came from the grand jury the
count allowed it to be altered and
amended.
Without considering the question "a 20 the
vnldity Of the grand jury this court. In a care
ful and learned opinion by Justice Miller
hods-fTst. that an Indictment found by grand
jury was indispensable 20 the power Of the
court 10 try the petitioner for the crime with
which he was charged second. that the indict-
ment on which he was tried, after IL had been
changed and amended by order o. permission
Of the court, was no longer the indictment
Of the grand jury that presented H. Any
other doctrine would place the rights Of
citizen which were intended 10 be
projected by o constitutional provision n. the
mercy or control OF court or prosecuting at
tOiney; or II IL be once held that changes can
he made by the consent or order OF the court
in the body Of an indictment as presented by
the grand Jury and prisoner can be called upon
20 answer n the indictment as thus changed.
the restriction which the Constitution places
uICu the power OF a court IN regard 70 the pre-
requisite Of an Indictment in reality no longer
cxists. IL IL Of no avail under such
circumstances 10 soy that the court still
has Jurisdiction OF the person and OF
The crime, for though II has possession
q the person, and would have Jurisdiction Of
the crime If IL were properly presented by in.
diciment, the Jurisdiction OF tho offence l.
gene, aud the court has no right 10 proceed
any further In the case for want Of an indict-
Tent. II there is nothing before the court
which the prisoner, In the language Of the
Constitution, can be "held 10 answer no il
entitled 10 be discharged, 80 tar as the ofionce
originally presented TO the court by in
court TO proceed 70 try n prisoner Is rs
much arrested az II the Indictment had
been dismissed or n HOiie prOsoquf hal
teen entered. bhcre was nothing before the
court Oh which il could hear the evidence or
pronounce sentence. The case comes within
the principles laid down by this court In cr pdrfe
Iange as Wall, 1853: e. pdrts Parks OBJ United
States, 1N; er pGrte " ilsOn Ql4 United States.
49,: and other cases. These views dispense
with the necessity Of examining into the qne3-
ticns concerning tho formation Of grand
trry and its removal from place 10 place within
the district. The court Is Of opinion that the
petitioner is entitled TO a writ Of habsdS corpus,
and II is accordingly granted.
This decision of the court is practi-
cally equivalent to the discharge of the
prisoner from custody.
A decision was also rendered by the
court to-day in the Virginia coupOn-tax
case of William l.. Royal against the
State of Virginia. This is an appeal
from the judgment pronounced against
ROYAL by the Supreme Court OF APP.
pcals OF Virginia on the 2jth of Feb
uary last in case in which he was
Prosecuted 10y the State for practicing
bis profession as a lawyer without Ii
ccnse after having rendered said States
coupons in payment of his license-tax.
This court holds that the present case cannot
be distinguished In principle from that Of Roy.
all rs. Virginia, l16 United States. 5,2. and on
that authority the judgmentOf the Supreme
Court Of Appeals Of Virginia Is reversed, and
tho cause remBnded with directions 10 allow
the writ Of error which was prayed for.
Opinion by Chief-Justice Waite.
A decision was also rendered in n
similar cOupon-tax case of Fl. A. Car
per, jailer of Pulaski county, Va,
against Richard L. Fitzgerald. Appeal
from the United States Circuit Court
for the Eastern district Of Virginia
Fitzgerald is a travelling salesman. He
was arrested in Pulaski county, Va,
for doing business without license after
be had made an offer of taX-receiyable
coupons i'll payment for such license.
Upon writ Of hdbcGs cOrp''s he was
from custody by Judge
Pond, of the United States Circuit
Court for the Eastern district of Yir-
GINA, sitting as circuit Judge in Cham
bers at Baltimore. The State of Vir-
ginia, through its jailer, appealed from
Judge Bonds decision to this court.
This court holds that tho Act Of March 3,
1853. allows appeals in hdbcGs-cOrptfs cases only
from the decision OF the Circuit Court, and
Il at decision of the circuit judge sitting in
chambers Is not a decision Of the court, oven
although such 1udge NAV order the papers
nlod and his order recorded in the CircuitCou
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Opinion by Chief-Justice Waite.